No. Even that limitation is unconstitutional. Look up the actual convictions and appeal rates for them
The most recent one is just a couple of months old where a guy threatened Kevin McCarthy, the House speaker, over 100 times on the phone and he only got probation because the judge knew the prison sentence wouldn’t withstand appeal.
I thought you were replying to me at first, but it just reaffirm what I said so now it looks like you were replying to someone else maybe
The ruling reaffirmed that the government cannot punish speech just because it is offensive or upsetting, reinforcing strong protections for free speech under the First Amendment.
That 7.62 is not the same as NATO 7.62. The AK round has the diameter but not the length, weight or amount of gunpowder.
You are right that it doesn’t matter that much compared to 5.56, for a battle rifle, but NATO 7.62 is much more powerful and weighs a shitload more. It’s what I use to shoot 700m (and as I said above what US special forces still use as the standard sniper rifle M21)
Russia has been using 5.45 since the 70s (The ones with the brown magazine instead of black). I know the Czech SAR models were available in 5.56x45, 5.45x56, and 7.62x39 (NATO is 7.62x51)
Is it so hard to believe you think Free speech should be absolute weapon should be unrestricted, abortion should be unrestricted, people should be able to harness electricity from solar and harness rainwater from the sky?
Because these are all things that are restricted here except for speech, so I am sure as fuck not going to budge on it
The AR bullet is less than one third the weight and much smaller than the 7.62 round which is why I said it was a shitty choice (and specifically why we still use Korea era armament to this day in the M 21, and 60, mini gun etc (NATO 7.62).
NATO 5.56 Is for ground troops and is designed more to incapacitate
Society and laws are at the mercy of those who are in control. Right now in the US it is the Trump administration, but I remember Barack Obama saying, “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone,” emphasizing his ability to take executive action without waiting for Congress to push his agenda forward.
The phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater” is outdated and legally irrelevant to modern free speech discussions. Its origin from Schenck v. United States (1919) was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which set a much higher standard for restricting speech. Modern First Amendment doctrine protects almost all speech unless it directly incites imminent violence or crime.
Participating in an election means you are agreeing to abide by the outcome of the election. By not participating you are protesting and saying I not recognise the legitimacy of this process.
No. Even that limitation is unconstitutional. Look up the actual convictions and appeal rates for them
The most recent one is just a couple of months old where a guy threatened Kevin McCarthy, the House speaker, over 100 times on the phone and he only got probation because the judge knew the prison sentence wouldn’t withstand appeal.